Banno

I should have been clearer, yes, the confusion is not Ryle's, but those who mistake the modal for the probable.

My overall response is that Lecture 2 has some confusion in regard to the modal considerations I've previously set out the story that the ordinary lan...

Ayer would be proud.

That leaves me somewhat nonplused. We've found why we are talking past each other?

Of course it is. In choosing to play a game you are choosing not to volunteer to fight in Ukraine. Ethics pervades everything you do. yep.

This conversation is well off the rails. Ethics is fundamentally about action and belief - about what to do. Yet one cannot wait until our ethical con...

If that were so, your presence in this forum seems inexplicable. You don't see the incongruity here?

Yep, except... Beyond words, perhaps, but perhaps not beyond acts.

I have been. A shame you seem to have a sort of blindness to it. It looks as if you have decided that you cannot act unless you are certain of what to...

In all the theorising in this thread we may lose track of the purpose of ethical thinking: to decide what to do. Ethics has to be about the relation b...

Yep. You choose for yourself what to believe. You choose whether to laugh with them or to stop them.

But outside of this debate, you would not kick the puppy. That's not who you are. That's the point.

Is this the third, our fourth, change of guard on this thread... Because at some stage one must act. @"Leontiskos" might find the puppy-kicker culpabl...

Nice catch on the SEP archive. The Argument from Queerness suggests that moral stuff presents us with “qualities or relations of a very strange sort, ...

There it is again.

I'm reading Lecture 2 but have been distracted in my posts. I'll make some greater effort.

Did you really mean to write that? In the first case, there is harm; in the second, no harm - what greater "practical" difference do you want? Which b...

Exactly!

Not at all. But this is where Wittgenstein was heading - that at some stage the justifications have to end, and we say: "This is what we do!" You are ...

Hello, . You beat me to it.

One ought keep one's promises. And this because a promise just it the sort of thing one ought to keep. And again, I don't see that "one ought not kick...

Ok. That all makes sense. It's sounds like more of a long term project than a thread, hence the large bibliography.

Needs must. It's a response to my interlocutors. I'll make this easy for you. From the form of the words, one would expect that realism were the negat...

Putting you at odds with the use in the SEP article, and missing the central tenant of moral realism.

Sigh. Here's were we came in. Two arguments for moral realism: (1) There are statements that at the least are prima facie both moral and true. (2) We ...

This thread is fast becoming inane. I suggest you take your recent, thoughtful post and start a new thread, perhaps setting out your thesis in a bit m...

Ok. That was not clear. So would you agree those sentences are incompatible? That one could not coherently assert that "'One ought do X' is true when ...

You appeared to agreed with Hyp, in his asserting those incompatible ideas. Here: I'm just not at all sure what it is you are doing. Think I mentioned...

The SEP citation put the lie to that.

Good for you. Others differ.

Odd, again. You have "One ought do X" is true when everyone believes it's true. And yet you seem to deny "You ought to do what everyone believes you s...

I entirely agree. Again, for the third or fourth time, your purpose here is obscure. It's not clear where your reasoning leads, or where it comes from...

Oh, I see. You're asking about the scope of moral statements. Interesting. Ok, so let's suppose that moral statements are "artificial". Does it follow...

:smile: You are asking for a friend?

Your article continues "The usual explanations of reductio fail to acknowledge the full extent of its range of application.' You said with which I was...

:wink:

has learned a new term: "Metaethical". And of course, a few hours after learning it, he is an expert.

Well, the way we think about stuff has a background in our myths. But the consequence, and the take away from Anscombe, is that the only workable opti...

With each other as well as the Papists.

I wondered about that. There's a difference between some moral statements being true and there being some incontestable moral laws. Realism does not i...

Huh...the buggers have updated the SEP page since then. Here's the archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20190311014303/https://plato.stanford.edu/entr...

I'm assuming you take on the modus tollens reading, with god on your side - or you on his. I'll join Philippa Foot in changing my mind every couple of...

Anscombe's "Modern Moral Philosophy" This remains for me the central and most troubling article in Ethics. It's what drove me to virtue ethics.

Well, you did make a series of silly mistakes. And it is quite plainly right, that "that we do cooperate does not imply that we ought cooperate."

Good. And here we might start to differentiate morality from ethics, or expectation from obligation. Apart from , so far in this thread we haven't tre...

And yet sometimes we ought not obey the law. It's never simple.

No, if you would play chess. Yes, if you would be an arsehole. Again, it's not clear to me what it is you are suggesting, both in that post and in you...

:gasp: There are many apologies for Abraham's behaviour. Seen at face value, he was morally culpable. Sure. We do cooperate. Yet it remains open as to...

I didn't introduce naturalism in to the conversation - you did in the example you borrowed. So if it's irrelevant, that's down to you. Cheers. You'll ...

This? where "It" is the account claiming and the story of the monkey. the point that both @"Michael" and I have made is that the account is an example...